Debates of June 11th, 1996

Oceans Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more that five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We will now proceed to Group No. 9 of motions, which includes Motions Nos. 54, 55, 69, 71 and 92.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-26, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2, on page 19, with the following:

"of the opinion that a fishery resource is or is likely to be at risk to the extent that".

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

moved:

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-26, in Clause 36, be amended a ) in the English version, by replacing line 2, on page 19, with the following:

"habitat is or is likely to be at risk to the extent that"; and b ) in the French version, by replacing lines 3 to 5, on page 19, with the following:

"incompatible avec quelque accord sur des revendications territoriales ratifié, mis en vigueur et déclaré valide par une loi fédérale."

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-26, in Clause 41, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 3, on page 27, with the following: c ) navigation safety, including the regulation of the construction, inspection, equipment and operation of boats;''.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-26, in Clause 42, be amended by replacing lines 24 and 25, on page 27, with the following:

"ing to fisheries resources;".

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-26, in Clause 107, be amended by replacing line 36, on page 49, with the following:

"establish a protected area for fishery resources in any area of".

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motions in Group No. 9. I admit this makes a lot of paper to deal with. This must be tiresome for the people at home who are watching, and I know it is a little onerous for the hon. members who are less familiar with this type of bill.

I will talk about Motions Nos. 54, 71 and 92. I will deal with them in three separate sections. What I am trying to make the government understand with these motions, the message I am trying to convey, always with the goal of avoiding the problems we may have with this bill in the future, is to determine the areas where there could be problems, where there might be conflicting areas.

This is a good opportunity for doing so, since the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who is also the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, had legal or constitutional experience before coming to the House. In fact, he uses it a lot to repeat this may not be the right place to change the things I am trying to change, as the hon. member for Lévis pointed out so brilliantly.

I want to remind the member for Vancouver Quadra that, of course, according to the first Constitution, fisheries were a federal jurisdiction, but at that time, there was something we did not know much about and that is environmental problems. It was not even part of our vocabulary. When definitions are too all-encompassing, when the words used to describe the things to be managed are a little too vague, it can create problems in some cases.

I am no constitutional expert, but in order to avoid conflicts on environmental matters for instance, I prefer asking the government to use terms such "fishery resources", that is the content of the ocean, rather than "marine resources", a vaster concept.

Why do I wish to make such a distinction? Well, this is still a new concept and, since I do not think this is the intent of the bill, I would not like to see the federal government grabbing the opportunity to spread its jurisdiction over other spheres of activity, besides the main one which is fisheries management.

Indeed, we are now talking about ocean management. However, I doubt that there has been enough discussions between the main partners-the provinces and the federal government-between ministers, and between provincial and federal officials, to agree on wording. According to the information at my disposal, there are different definitions of those words, different interpretations. It is important to stress this fact.

For those who have just joined us, I also want to remind them that last year, in committee, the former fisheries minister, Brian Tobin, recognized that he and Sheila Copps, the then Minister of the Environment, wer like yin and yang. What about it? Surely, this did not mean that there was a clash of personalities between these two people. They had been working together long before I arrived.

Must I conclude that their own officials did not have the same perception of things? This is why I draw the minister's attention to the necessity of being cautious, of choosing a less controversial term. Once there has been agreement on the first term, we can go on to the second.

During the time I have left-and it is a source of concern and frustration to be limited to 10 minutes at report stage-I would like to address the other motions, Motions Nos. 69 and 55.

Motion No. 69 seeks to draw the department's attention to the safety of pleasure craft. Since he is responsible for safety, I would like the minister to extend his definition to include the safety of anything that navigates and not to limit himself to one kind of floating object, that is pleasure craft. I would like safety of commercial vessels to be taken into consideration-something which should have been done when the Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans were merged. The same minister recently set user fees for commercial vessels. I would like to also see him look after their commercial safety.

As for Motion No. 55, this is one presented by the government. I will close with this one just to prove my good faith. I can live with what is proposed in this motion. Its purpose is to ensure that there is no incompatibility with native land claims that have already been ratified, would be ratified, or might be declared valid by a federal statute. That is totally sensible and I can live with that.

In other words, if I am capable of acknowledging that the Liberals across the way are capable of some good things, I would like some non-partisan acknowledgment from time to time that we, too, are capable of good things. And if we are capable of acknowledging that care must be taken with respect to aboriginal treaties, the same spirit ought to be reflected in the letter of the act in view of all that was said in respect of motions in Group No. 8 concerning the provinces.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, in speaking to these motions, we in the Reform Party can support the Bloc in its move to have the federal government responsible for safety, including navigation, as outlined by my colleague from Gaspé. We are also in support of the Liberal amendment.

We cannot support Motions Nos. 71 and 92, as they seek to increase the jurisdiction of the provinces in areas where we do not think it is appropriate.

The idea of limiting the minister's powers to marine protected areas, to fisheries alone, is not a move in the right direction. Canada's marine protected areas are about much more than fish. We have very eclectic marine wildlife in all parts of the country. The marine protected areas must be there to ensure not only the protection of fisheries but the protection of other aquatic and marine life found in Canada's marine waters.

We will be supporting the first motion but we cannot support the last two motions in this grouping.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to resume discussion of the oceans act. I am addressing in particular Motions Nos. 54, 55, 69, 71 and 92.

I have been impressed with the sincerity and quality of the arguments made by the hon. member for Gaspé. If I have made comments during the course of this very long debate on the choice of arenas for the solution to particular problems, it is because our constitutional system, any good constitutional system, rests on respect for constitutional roles and missions of different organs, including in this case parliamentary committees.

Some of the proposals the hon. member makes in the interstices of discussion of the oceans act go to relations between the different institutions of government. The submission of the minister to decisions of the governor in council following on decisions by standing committees is an interesting proposal. It has memories of the United States congressional committees and their attitude to the presidency, although the nearer model would be la convention, that interesting example of government by assembly one had in the early 1790s. There is nothing to say against this proposal as a pure proposal. I would simply say that neither the fourth nor the fifth French republics have followed it. It is not our system. It may well be that in the discussion of fundamental constitutional change we should get into that. But this is not the proper arena for it.

I would suggest to the hon. member that he might ask his party to consider putting him up for the committee on procedure and House affairs, which is a de facto constitutional committee and addresses structural problems of this sort. Having been invited as an expert

witness before this committee recently, I can testify to the very high intellectual quality of all the hon. members from all parties who were represented there.

Some of the other suggestions on federal-provincial relations are interesting and topical. A first ministers conference is coming up. One of the provincial premiers has already raised marine issues as a topic for discussion. These are issues that could be discussed there with some value for us all.

Getting back to the specific issues before us and addressing the points concerned, I note the responsibility of Canada to conserve and protect the vast marine ecosystems off our three coasts for present and future generations. We recognize the increasing stresses on our ocean environments, particularly our coastal areas.

The standing committee of which the member for Gaspé was a valuable and hard working member heard from Canadians from all coasts.

In Bill C-26, marine protected areas are described as areas of the sea designated for the conservation, protection of endangered or threatened marine species and their unique habitats, commercial, non-commercial fishery resources, including marine mammals and their habitats and any other marine resource or habitat that is necessary to fulfil the mandate.

To many Canadians this is one of the most important clauses of the Canada oceans act. It will be a milestone in Canada's oceans history.

In addition to this clause, Bill C-26 contains regulation making powers with respect to the marine protected areas described above. It prescribes measures for creating these areas in emergency situations.

In a situation where a marine resource or habitat is at risk or likely to be at risk, we will take action immediately. This is part of the precautionary approach described in the preamble to the act, erring on the side of caution.

Government Motion No. 55 seeks to correct the transcription error in this section to allow for the protection of marine resources or habitats that are or likely to be at risk rather than as it is currently written, which does not provide for protection of marine resources or habitats that are at risk. This motion also makes the French and English texts of the bill consistent in this section.

On the other hand, in our view, the Bloc in Motion No. 54 seeks to limit the establishment of emergency marine protected areas to the protection of fisheries resources only. This in our view flies in the face of the ecosystem approach. There is more in Canada's oceans than just those species we consume and many of those species and ecosystems require protection too. Therefore, in our view, Motion No. 54 should be rejected.

The Bloc attempts to impose similar limitations in MotionNo. 92, where it is proposed to amend Environment Canada's Canada Wildlife Act to apply only to fisheries resources.

We find this unacceptable for the obvious reason that the Canada Wildlife Act is legislation to protect the wildlife of this nation, not just fisheries resources. Therefore, we recommend rejection of Motion No. 92.

On a similar theme, Motion No. 71 by the Bloc proposes to restrict the minister's mandate for research to fisheries resources only. The bill commits to an ecosystem approach to managing our oceans. Ocean ecosystems consist of all the fisheries resources. To restrict the minister's mandate for research to only fisheries condemns us to ignorance of natural processes at work in our oceans.

This is not the intent of the legislation. In fact, Motion No. 71 is totally contrary to the ecosystem approach proposed in the legislation and supported by Canadians. We recommend rejection of the motion.

On another matter, Motion No. 69 by the Bloc proposes to expand the powers of the minister to include the regulation of construction, inspection, equipment and operation of all boats. This clause currently only refers to pleasure craft.

While I am sure the minister is flattered by the Bloc's confidence, the responsibility for regulation of construction, inspection, equipment and operation of commercial vessels remains within the mandate of another minister, the Minister of Transport. As such, Motion No. 69 should be defeated and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should remain responsible only for pleasure craft.

In summary, I recommend that an effort be continued to protect the marine resources of Canada's three oceans for generations to come. Members of this House should reject the Bloc MotionsNos. 54, 71 and 92 and support the government technical amendments in Motion No. 55.

Furthermore, I urge that Motion No. 69 be rejected. It proposes to expand the responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, as I already said, for marine safety, to commercial ships which is clearly the responsibility of the Minister of Transport.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the motions proposed by the member for Gaspé are particularly relevant in this regard. First, I wanted to check the meaning of halieutic resources-I knew what it meant, but I wanted to be sure. Le Petit Robert says that halieutic resources refers to anything involving fisheries.

We can see the concern of the member for Gaspé is the role formerly played by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that is,

a concern about fishing. I find that entirely reasonable, because we can see with the new Oceans Act that the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is now much broader.

We could look for example, at Motion No. 69, which concerns clause 41. This clause is very explicit. It talks about Coast Guard services; services for the safe, economical and efficient movement of ships; aids to navigation systems and services; marine communications and traffic management services; ice breaking and ice management services; channel maintenance services and the marine component of the federal search and rescue program.

This really gives us a sense of the aim of the law, which is to significantly change the role of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I am not saying we should not try to make changes. As a matter of fact, in my previous speech I was mentioning that I wanted changes and that changes are often a necessity because things evolve.

With regard to the Coast Guard, personally-this is not the Bloc's position as such-I have some trouble seeing how this is going to be transferred from the transport department to the department which, from now on, will be the oceans department, as this will be a new field of jurisdiction.

Speaking of the fields of jurisdiction of various departments, certain colleagues, especially opposite, mentioned environmental concerns, but there is a Department of the Environment, which is called to play a very important role. It seems to me we should have had more time to think this through, more consultation before going ahead with such major changes, because transferring responsibility for the whole thing is like giving responsibility over the ecosystem, the environment; it is giving authority over many fields which used to come under the environment department.

I wonder about this. Of course, I did not follow the committee proceedings as closely as the member for Gaspé, who is on the committee, because I sit on other ones, but the member for Gaspé mentioned them very often and told us about his concerns. Coming from an area where there is a lot of fishing, he has shown on many occasions how well he knows the issue. There is an old saying to the effect that you should not bite more than you can chew.

I am concerned about the minister who will have to play a great many different roles which might be interrelated but could sometimes clash, especially if, for example, he becomes responsible for other departments. This is why it is so important to have a mechanism for the consultation of, and the joint action with, not only other federal departments but also the other partners, the provinces. Consider all the resources associated with oceans; the member for Chambly reminded us yesterday that it can mean such things as the flotilla which ran aground at Pointe-aux-Anglais where the shipwreck now has a definite heritage value.

Clearly the issue is not a simple one. Sometimes, when trying to clarify things, we can complicate them by generating contradictions between the operations of different departments.

My purpose is not to officially oppose that aspect of the bill, but rather to remind the government to consider thoroughly all the possible impacts of such changes in transfers, particularly in the case of the Coast Guard.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Gaspé. I am not going to support these amendments.

Coming from the same area as the hon. member, it is perfectly right and legitimate that he raise these amendments to this legislation.

The clerks at the table make a judgment on whether these amendments are legal. That is why we have a law clerk. In fact, I was once a law clerk in a provincial legislature. That is why we have an assistant clerk, a chief clerk. They make those decisions.

I can also understand why the hon. member in some of his amendments talks the way he does about the ecosystem and about the great dissatisfaction he and his fishermen have with the way the federal government has treated the ecosystem over the years.

The great Gaspé area puts out a brochure for June that says: "Fishing from the wharves". That is for saltwater fish. Just imagine, fishing from the wharves. And under that it says: "In various sections of the Gaspé for this year". There is listed which wharves are the best wharves for fishing cod.

We cannot fish cod in Newfoundland and Labrador because of the moratorium. However, the federal government allows fishing from the wharves in the Gaspé for cod, mackerel, sea trout and so on. It is a great fishing area. The best spawning area in the world for mackerel is the Gaspé coast. What has happened over the years?

I can understand the hon. member. Over the years the federal government had given licences to Norway, Sweden and Denmark to fish every year at this time as the mackerel are coming in to spawn in that great spawning area in the gulf. What these vessels did was block the spawning path of the mackerel as it came in in one big line. Believe me, that is not too long ago.

In fact we still have foreign licences inside 200-miles. I am surprised that the opposition has not introduced an amendment to end it for all time.

What happened to the squid that once frequented the Gaspé peninsula and the eastern coast of Canada?

The hon. member talks about the ecosystem, the squid that used to go into the gulf, the squid that were the food of the cod, the flatfish and every other type of groundfish. The squid are born around Florida. They come up the coastline of Canada, go into the gulf, go way up around the east coast of Canada, come back down in one year to Florida and die. They know where to go, do they not? They go down to Florida in that one year cycle, reproduce and then die. Ever since I can recall the federal government has judged squid to be underutilized. Therefore it has granted the licences for the great interception of the squid on their way up around the east coast of Canada into the Gulf of the St. Lawrence and around the Gaspé Peninsula.

I can understand what the hon. member is talking about when he talks about the federal government's mismanaging the resource historically. Historically there is certainly a case to be made for the federal government's total and utter mismanagement of the fisheries. There is no doubt about it. However, in the meantime I will not support the hon. member's amendment. I do not want him to get excited.

The unfortunate part of the management of the fishery that sometimes fisheries and oceans does not understand is the fact that fish swim. Fish actually swim.

[An hon. member]

Politicians talk, the fish swim.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

No, the politicians make the lines in the ocean. They draw these lines and say here will be the regulation over on this side of the line and here is another regulation over on this side of the line. It is as if there are police officers at the bottom of the ocean who come up with stop signs and the fish are actually stopping somewhere in mid-ocean and turn around.

Therefore I can understand what the hon. member is talking about when he talks about the ecosystem that should apply to the fishery as it is not presently applying. Let me elaborate on the ecosystem and what is considered under these amendments.

If we look at the respect governments in Canada have for the ecosystem and the effects that government action has on the ecosystem we see today that while our fishermen sit at home, just outside the 200 mile zone, on what we call the Flemish Cap, which the hon. member for Gaspé is very familiar with, we have the foreign nations that continue to fish every single resource there.

I can understand the hon. member's point when he says there should be more consultation than there presently is. The only problem, something we have to think about as parliamentarians, is that when one gives the authority to the local area to have an input sometimes what comes out the other end is not desirable. There has been case after case of that.

In other words, when we tell the province of Quebec it can manage a certain part of the fishing resource, as the federal government has done, which has not been so for the other provinces although they have moved over the past 20 years historically, and then we tell Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland the same thing, what we have is a hodge-podge of regulations. We have a non-respect for the very thing the hon. member is promoting, the ecosystem.

[An hon. member]

And very confused fish.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Yes, and even when we go to the fishermen.

Today my phone calls concern fathoms. When fishermen set a net under 400 fathoms in the Atlantic Ocean today for turbot-a familiar word-they must have by regulation a net size of seven and a half inches. Unfortunately our fishermen do not have that size nets. Above 400 fathoms it is five and half inches.

Last year the federal government agreed to change that regulation size. There are hundreds of fishermen saying "how can we continue to fish today, our fish plants will close?" On checking why the regulation was changed, I discovered the regulation was changed by a conservation committee, set up by the hon. John Crosbie when he was minister of fisheries and oceans, that consulted with the fishermen and the environmentalists and came up with a regulation that cannot work. Now here am I lobbying today the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to change the very thing he had used his consultation process to get from the local fisher persons.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mackenzie, human rights; the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, lacrosse.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-26. In fact, I think some work has already been done with my colleague from Gaspé at second reading, and we are now dealing with a group of rather important motions.

I will deal in greater detail with the environmental aspect, which is my area of concern, and the effect of this bill on the Department of the Environment. This new bill gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans some powers that already belong to the Minister of the Environment. This is a further example of overlap between departments, and this is not the first time there are tensions between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment. Once again, we have the yin and the yang.

The bill seems to create a sectoral Department of the Environment. It is like a Department of the Coastal Environment, if you will. If each department did the same thing, the Department of Transport would include something called Environment Transport, the Department of Industry, something called Environment Industry, and all government departments would have powers over environmental protection and conservation.

If this is the direction the government wants to take, all it needs to do is abolish the Department of the Environment. The government's approach to the environment is to centralize powers in Ottawa because of the national interest and of the globalization of environmental problems. Of course, Bill C-26 matches this approach.

I will quote a few clauses. Clauses 28 to 36 of the bill are those pertaining to the development of a strategy for the management of estuarine, coastal and marine ecosystems. This part does not apply to lakes and rivers. The management of these ecosystems is for the most part under provincial jurisdiction. I think the provinces are well aware of that, and deal with the environment. If there is overlap, not only with the Department of the Environment, but also with areas of provincial jurisdiction, the government is seizing some excessive powers.

It is impossible to control a department in this way. The government cannot meddle in jurisdictions that do not belong to it. Once again, this will simply create confusion between the provinces, which will not be able to reach a consensus, preferring to defend their own particular interests, which is quite normal, while the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will never manage to harmonize all this. This is another bill that will be impossible to implement and administer.

I now want to move on to clauses 31, 32 and 33, which give the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the power to develop and implement a national strategy for managing the ecosystems in estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters. This strategy involves implementing plans for the management of activities, establishing management or consulting organizations, developing various programs, setting environmental standards, collecting and analyzing scientific data on the ecosystems in question. That is quite a lot.

It must be noted that several of the activities I just mentioned are already being carried out by the Department of the Environment. Once again, the government is duplicating existing services, as though it could afford such duplication.

Nowhere in this bill is the minister required to come to an agreement with other federal departments or with the provinces. In most cases, he can, if he so desires, request the co-operation of other authorities. But only if he so desires. Once again, introducing such bills without harmonizing activities with those of other federal departments, the provinces and other levels of government is unacceptable.

The fact that the minister is not required to work in co-operation with officials from Environment Canada in particular and other federal departments in general is incomprehensible and unacceptable. At a time when jobs are being cut and when public spending is supposed to be reduced, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is creating duplication within the federal government.

Moreover, the new powers, duties and functions assigned to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are not exclusively his, as they do not affect in any way the existing powers, duties and functions of other ministers and stakeholders. This means that competition and overlap may well develop in terms of applicable standards and amendments, as well as priorities and special measures.

It is incomprehensible and unacceptable that the minister not be required to work together with the provinces, when the provinces are directly affected by marine environment management. Over the years, Environment Canada has had to do so, through bodies such as the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, which is more or less satisfactory. Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans contemplating going the same route?

It is a special situation where 10 environment ministers are working together with the aboriginals. Trying to reach an agreement on harmonization with 10 people around the table never works. This has prompted the Minister of the Environment to try to enter into a bilateral agreement with each province, since environmental priorities vary from one province to the next depending on the industries operating in the province. Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans do the same?

It does not always work well. I can tell you that, sometimes, it takes years just to settle one matter. Take for example greenhouse effect gas. We saw what happened. At the Rio summit, before all the other countries represented, the Canadian government made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but realized, after consulting the provinces, that it would not be possible.

Moreover, it imposed standards unilaterally. The provinces were unable to meet these standards. As a result, come the year 2002, instead of having reduced greenhouse gas emissions, we will be facing another international summit where we will have to admit it did not work. We must watch out.

It is incomprehensible and unacceptable for the provinces to be treated, in this bill, like any other stakeholder, be it interests groups, municipalities, or industries. To do so is to show a glaring lack of respect for the provinces and it just does not make sense. It seems to me that a province has much greater powers than an interest group, a municipality or an industry. Provinces should be

on an equal footing with the federal government, not at a lower level.

The environment is not one of the exclusive jurisdictions assigned to one level of government under the Constitution. It is what is called an ancillary jurisdiction, arising from those jurisdictions specifically mentioned in the Canadian Constitution.

Theoretically, the Department of the Environment is responsible for this ancillary jurisdiction, together with each of the departments concerned.

Before 1985, the Quebec government, which has jurisdiction over local and territorial matters, played a major role with respect to the environment, occupying most of the jurisdictional area. At the time, in accordance with the Constitution, the federal government was content to get involved in areas complementing its jurisdiction.

After 1985, the federal started to get involved in environmental issues. It did so mainly through its spending power and through new powers it received from the courts. From then on, many instances of overlap and duplications appeared. This situation has been steadily growing since the election of the present Liberal government, which is doing its best to centralize the decision making process in Ottawa.

To the Quebec government, Bill C-26 is another step toward centralization. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a four to three decision, divested the provinces of the management of the ocean environment and of its territory and turned it over to the federal government. Under Bill C-26, the federal government is trying to get the maximum out of this decision. Because of this centralizing tendency, Quebec fears that the federal government is attempting, in the middle or long term, to claim management of oceans and their resources.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

According to the agreement, Motions Nos. 54, 55, 69 and 71 are deemed to have been put to a vote and the recorded divisions are deemed to have been requested and deferred.

The question is on Motion No. 54. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members ha-ving risen: